WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:24912 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 PETITIONER: K.M.RAVI AGED 58 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, THALIYACHA HOUSE, NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673613 BY ADVS. M.R.SABU LAKSHMI RAMADAS APARNA RAJAN SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 NANMINDA RURAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD NO.D 1988 NANMINDA.P.O., KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 673613 2 THE SECRETARY, NANMINDA RURAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD NO.D 1988 NANMINDA.P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673613 BY ADV P.C SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:24912 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as Senior Clerk under the 1st respondent society, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings alleging various acts of omission and commission. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 03.12.2009. An appeal filed against the said order of termination before the Board of Directors got rejected, and thereafter, the petitioner filed a case before the Co- operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode, invoking Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Arbitration Court vide judgment dated 20.10.2015 passed in ARC No.139/2011, set aside the punishment order on the ground that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was illegal. The respondent society was directed to reinstate the petitioner, and the Arbitration Case was allowed with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. 2. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Arbitration Court, the respondent society filed Appeal No.110/2015 WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:24912 before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal vide judgment dated 12.12.2017 upheld the order passed by the Arbitration Court and directed the respondent society to conduct domestic enquiry afresh as per law permitting the petitioner herein to adduce evidence, if any. 3. The said judgment dated 12.12.2017 passed in Appeal No.110/2015 by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal came to be challenged by the respondent society in W.P.(C.) No.4698/2018. The petitioner also filed W.P.(C.) No.2118/2019 against the observation of the Tribunal. While deciding issue No.1, i.e., whether the impugned award is proper and legal, the Tribunal set aside the award in ARC No.139/2011. There were discrepancies in the decision on issue No.1 and issue No.2. In issue No.1, the award/judgment passed by the Arbitration Court was set aside, whereas in issue No.2, the judgment of the Arbitration Court was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:24912 4. This Court, vide judgment dated 18.01.2023 passed in W.P.(C.) No.4698/2018 as well as in W.P.(C.) No.2118/2019, filed by the petitioner impugning the order of the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent society and allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner to the limited extent by clarifying that the Tribunal has not set aside the order of the Arbitration Court but had confirmed it. 5. The learned single Judge of this Court was of the view that it would be unnecessary for the Court to enter into the merits of the enquiry or to decide the credibility or otherwise of the depositions and evidence adduced therein, when it is expressly and without reservation, admitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was issued by the Sub Committee which was then affirmed by an Appellate Committee with the members of the Sub Committee. It was also noticed that the Kerala Co-operative Appellate Tribunal had reserved the right and given full liberty to the Society to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:24912 terms of the law and follow due process in conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. 6. The said decision of the learned Single Judge came to be challenged in W.A Nos.1741/2023 & 1742/2023. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 03.10.2023 dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The review against the said judgment passed in the writ appeals also came to be dismissed. 7. After the judgment was passed in the review petition, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice with the memorandum of charges on 13.10.2023. The petitioner submitted the reply saying that after the petitioner demitted the office on 31.05.2023, on attaining the age of superannuation, there was no relationship between the master and servant and therefore, no disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him in view of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. He also submitted that the petitioner was no longer a member of the Co-operative Society after he attains the age of WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:24912 superannuation, and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings would not have been continued against him. 8. Since the Tribunal’s judgment was affirmed by this Court, a three-member disciplinary committee was constituted. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee on 17.10.2023, but he was not present on that day. Hence, the sitting was adjourned to 21.10.2023, and again, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear on 21.10.2023 and the matter was adjourned to 30.10.2023. On that day also, the petitioner did not appear, and the matter was adjourned to 03.11.2023. 9. The disciplinary Authority rejected the objection of the petitioner and held that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated before he demitted the office on 31.05.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Appellate Tribunal also granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh. The proceedings, by issuing show cause notice on 30.10.2023, were not a fresh WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:24912 proceeding, but would be deemed to be the proceedings which continued against him in view of the liberty granted by the Tribunal. After adverting to the response of the petitioner to the show cause notice, as the petitioner did not appear before the disciplinary committee, his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules empowers the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a member of the society. After demitting the office on 31.05.2023, the petitioner no longer remained a member of the respondent Co-operative society. Therefore, the show cause notice dated 13.10.2023, and thereafter, the impugned order passed terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 05.01.2024 are wholly without jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is said that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned punishment order be set aside and the WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:24912 respondents be directed to grant the petitioner all the benefits of service including pension etc,. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C.) No.29957/2019 dated 24.06.2024 in Satheesan v. Kannur District Co- operative Bank [2020(4) KLT 236] in support of his submissions. 11. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent society, however, submits that initiation of the fresh enquiry after an employee or the member of the Co-operative Society demits the office is barred under Rule 198. However, the question which needs to be decided in this case is whether the show cause notice dated 13.10.2023 would amount to initiation of fresh enquiry or it should be treated as the continuation of the enquiry which was permitted by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The said decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court. According to Sri.P.C Sasidharan, the notice dated 13.10.2023 is not an initiation WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:24912 of a fresh enquiry inasmuch as no fresh charge sheet was issued. But the petitioner’s response was asked to the chargesheet, which was already issued to the petitioner in view of the liberty granted by the Kerala Co-operative Appellate Tribunal as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court rendered while challenging the decision passed by the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that it is not a fresh enquiry, and Rule 198 does not bar continuation of the enquiry after a member/employee of the Co-operative society demits the office. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent society has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar & another [(2011) 12 SCR 1036] and submits that an employee who is guilty of serious misconduct should not be allowed to go scott free because of the trivial violation of procedure and the High Court should not sit as a Court of appeal against the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority on WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 10 2025:KER:24912 evaluation of the evidence as the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and is only required to see that whether the rules of natural justice have been followed or not. 13.I have considered the submission. Relevant portions of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules,1969 read as under: “Punishment 198.Disciplinary action :- (1)Any member of the establishment of a Co-operative Society may, for good and sufficient reasons, be punished by imposing any of the following penalties, namely;- (a) Censure; (b) Fine (in the case of employees in the last grade); (c) Withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect; (d) Withholding of promotion.; (e) Recovery from pay off the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the society, by negligence or breach of orders or otherwise (f) Reduction to a lower rank (g) Compulsory retirement (h) Dismissal from service. Charge sheet (2) No kind of punishment shall be awarded to an employee unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action against and he has been afforded an opportunity including a personal hearing to defend himself. Every order awarding punishment shall be communicated to the employee concerned in writing stating the grounds on which the punishment has been awarded. Disciplinary Sub Committee [(2A) The committee of a society shall constitute a disciplinary sub-committee consisting of not more WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 11 2025:KER:24912 than three of its members, of whom one shall be designated as Chairman, but the President of the Committee of the society shall not be a member in the disciplinary subcommittee. Domestic enquiry (2B) The Disciplinary Sub-Committee so constituted shall inquire into the charges against the employee either by themselves or by engaging an external agency] 14. From the language of the Rule, it is evident that a member of the establishment of the Co-operative society can be punished by imposing any of the punishments enumerated therein. The question which requires consideration in this case is whether the show cause notice dated 13.10.2023 is a fresh enquiry or continuation of the enquiry from the stage, where from the enquiry got vitiated. 15.The Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in its judgment dated 12.12.2017 (supra) while deciding issue No. 2 held as under: “Hence the finding in the impugned award that the domestic enquiry was illegal is upheld dismissing the appeal. The order for reinstatement is upheld and the appellant is directed to conduct the domestic enquiry afresh as per law by permitting the respondent to WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 12 2025:KER:24912 adduce evidence of any to disprove the charges against him.” 16. Thus, the respondent society was permitted to conduct the domestic enquiry afresh as per law from the stage it got viated. The said liberty has been upheld by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench as stated above. 17. If the enquiry is a new enquiry and a charge memo is issued after the retirement of the employee/member, the said enquiry would not be permissible inasmuch as no fresh departmental enquiry can be initiated after a member/employee of the Co-operative society has demitted the office. However, if the enquiry was initiated before the member/employee of the Co-operative Society has demitted the office, after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, the enquiry would continue, as there is no bar for continuation of the domestic enquiry. 18. In the present case, the charge sheet was never set aside by the Kerala Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, and the petitioner was asked to submit a reply to the charge sheet WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 13 2025:KER:24912 vide notice dated 13.10.2023. The judgment cited by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in Satheesan (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as in the said case, the charge sheet was issued after the petitioner therein, demitted the office on attaining the age of superannuation. In the present case, the charge sheet was issued before the petitioner demitted the office and the Tribunal, as well as the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench permitted the respondent society to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the notice issued on 13.10.2023 is not an initiation of a new enquiry inasmuch as the enquiry gets initiated after issuing the charge sheet. The charge sheet was issued before the petitioner demitted the office and therefore, I am of the view that there was no bar for the respondent society to issue him the show cause notice and ask for his response to the charge sheet in view of the liberty granted by the Tribunal which was upheld by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 14 2025:KER:24912 Thus, I do not find much substance in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. D.K. SINGH JUDGE AP WP(C) NO. 12793 OF 2024 15 2025:KER:24912 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12793/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ARBITRATION COURT DATED 20.10.2015 IN ARC NO.139/2011 Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL DATED 12.12.2017 IN APPEAL NO.110/2015 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.4698/2018 Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DISMISSING THE R.P.NO.645/2023 DATED 26.07.2023 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN W.A.NO. 1741/2023 DATED 03.10.2023 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2023 Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.10.2023 NO.049/2023-24 Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE DATED 26.10.2023 Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.01.2024 Exhibit -P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CON. CASE (C) NO.1008/2023 DATED 07.03.2024